Traffic management


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Suffolk County Council (18 018 021)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 20-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council has failed to deal with his request for road traffic calming and safety measures. The Ombudsman has found evidence of delay by the Council and has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council accepts the recommended actions.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (19 000 432)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 08-Aug-2019

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's decision not to implement recommendations in a traffic report.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (18 008 200)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 31-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision on a planning application and its refusal to agree road safety measures, putting himself and others at risk. He also complains about delays in complaint handling. The Ombudsman will not investigate the Council's decision on a planning application as this arose more than 12 months ago. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council's decisions on road safety but finds fault in the Council's complaint handling. The Ombudsman recommends the Council makes a payment to Mr X for time and trouble.

  • London Borough of Hackney (18 014 077)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 31-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr X purchased a car based on the Council's decision to issue him with a parking permit. However, on renewal of the permit, the Council said the permit was issued in error and he was not eligible due to his property being located in a 'car-free development'. There is fault and the Council has agreed to grant Mr X a parking permit until the lease on the car he purchased expires.

  • Norfolk County Council (18 016 325)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 17-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council had not properly considered her complaint about an increase in traffic, and the speed of vehicles travelling past her house following the opening of a new dual carriageway. The Council was not at fault for how it considered the increase in traffic. The Council was at fault because its speed management strategy was unclear and contains misleading information about its part in investigating speeding vehicles. The Council agreed to review its speed management strategy so it accurately reflects its role in responding to complaints about speeding vehicles.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (18 002 921)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 28-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mrs Q's complaint about it failing to investigate her reports of a mosque never opening its car park for which it received planning consent which may be contributing to local parking problems. While it acted against inconsiderate parking, it failed to explore the reason for its frequent recurrence. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. There was no evidence of her asking for a disabled bay. There is insufficient evidence about it failing to maintain pavements to find fault.

  • Manchester City Council (18 013 595)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 27-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Council unreasonably refused to issue him with a residents' parking permit. There was fault by the Council because it did not update its website to make clear certain properties including Mr X's home were not eligible for parking permits but it has since updated its website. The Council agreed to a financial remedy for Mr X to reflect the unnecessary time and trouble he was put to in pursuit of the matter.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (18 014 632)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 27-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr C says the Council failed to make a local water company carry out roadworks on a road he uses in a timely fashion. The Council fulfilled its statutory duties and was not responsible for any delay. It was not, therefore, at fault.

  • Transport for London (19 001 854)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 26-Jun-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained Transport for London about its failure to adhere to a Court Order revoking several Penalty Charge Notices. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because Transport for London accepted it was at fault and has proposed suitable redress.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (18 007 717)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 14-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not properly consider objections when deciding to impose permanent no waiting restrictions down a nearby road; he says the Council was biased and predetermined the decision. The Ombudsman found that although the process did not start in the normal way, the Council then followed the correct process and considered all relevant information when it decided the matter. Therefore, the outcome was the same regardless of earlier fault, so does not cause a significant injustice.